Most Popular

Politico Magazine asked some of the smartest and most experienced Republican operatives, pundits and even a former presidential candidate to weigh in on the suddenly unsettled field of 2016 GOP presidential aspirants. Three months ago, this conversation would have sounded like the Republican version of the Hillary chatter we’re hearing on the left today. Most of us would simply have cast Chris Christie as the inevitable nominee-in-waiting. No one can make that argument now, and the continued sell-off of Christie’s political stock has unlocked his formerly rock-solid donor base. It clearly tempts significant players to “buy the lottery ticket,” as Grover Norquist puts it.

If you ask me, Christie is almost dead but too stubborn to lie down. But not all of my Republican colleagues agree. Some of these folks are still Christie fans; some see potential in other favorites like former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, to name a few—and weigh their various strengths, weaknesses and selling propositions. Also making the list are former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan—all with previous experience on the national stage, though with obviously mixed results. Veep wannabe Sarah Palin and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough will get a kick out of being on the list, but almost certainly won’t pull on the snow boots for a trip to Iowa or New Hampshire.

The candidates who do suit up for 2016 will face a faster, wilder primary than before, with new demands of social media-driven advocacy and fundraising, of data targeting and technological leveraging. There will be the hamster wheel of always-on “earned media” challenges—i.e., free TV exposure—and of a restive, demanding Tea Party cohort that can sometimes make the best the enemy of the good. They’ll face an establishment burned by 2012’s billion-dollar super PAC and mega-donor flops, and by 15-minutes-of-fame candidates who were pitifully unready for prime time. Finally, they’ll have to do all this in a primary schedule that is more compressed and offers fewer opportunities for a spectacular breakout.

The serious candidates will rise on the power of organization, message and ideas. Each will try to brand him or herself as the remedy to the exhaustion, stagnation and failure of the Obama years and as the one person who is really ready to take on Hillary Clinton.

Since the end of the George W. Bush administration, Republicans have been looking for better than “Mr. Right Now.” They walked down the aisle with John McCain and Mitt Romney, but these were arranged marriages at best. In 2008, it was McCain’s turn, and in 2012, Romney was the last dog in the fight. We went to war with the candidates we had.

This large (and largely serious) field will face a different primary audience than before. The GOP’s three-legged stool of the past—social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign-policy hawks—has been upended. I argue there are four factions in place today, and it makes the calculus of selecting a nominee more complex than ever. It’s not a perfect typology, but it will give you an idea of the balancing test for candidates as they build a coalition with elements often in powerful opposition to one another.

The newest and biggest challenge for these candidates is to navigating the second Tea Party Primary. Tea Party folks (using broad shorthand) are deeply troubled by the radical expansion of government under Obama, hate Obamacare with the heat of a million suns, and are looking for a candidate who matches both their ideals and their combativeness. It’s tough to fake, and candidates try at their peril (see Romney, Willard M.). They’re driven by social media, vocal, demanding, deeply patriotic and will work themselves to death for the right champion. They’ve largely absorbed the fiscal conservative faction, and are deeply skeptical of a plan that starts with “spend” instead of “cut.” Their distrust of the national GOP establishment and the professional political class borders on pathological. The “country cousins” cliché of the Tea Party isn’t quite as bad as the Beltway crowd likes to make it, but Tea Partiers still have a strong tendency to let a single sin be a nearly eternal disqualifier (ask Rubio about the long road back after daring to tackle immigration) and to sometimes fall in and out of love with candidates quickly.

Social conservatives are still a meaningful, but frustrated factor in the party. In broad strokes, they’re largely winning on abortion and losing on gay marriage, which has led to some soul searching. With the exception of Santorum and Huckabee, you likely won’t see the rest of the candidates making social conservative issues a central focus of the battle. Watch to see if social conservatives make medical marijuana and decriminalization their next red-line issue.

The foreign-policy hawks have been sidelined since roughly 2006. The messy ends to Iraq and Afghanistan; the chaos in Libya, Egypt and Syria; and Iran creeping closer to nuclear capability are all troubling signs for 2016. GOP voters (like most Americans) are leery of further overseas interventions and doubtful of their lasting or positive effects. Absent some terrible externality (an Iran nuclear test, a major terrorist attack, etc.), most candidates will probably gravitate toward a vaguely isolationist peace-through-strength position. Candidates are more likely to face questions on the NSA spying operations than on whether we should put boots on the ground in Syria.

Big-government conservatives are rich, but tricky. In every election cycle, the age-old ritual of high-dollar fundraisers building a financial support network for candidates who look and smell like them is the core of the campaign. These are Chamber of Commerce Republicans, who want government to Do Things. But the rising tide of libertarian conservatism is profoundly skeptical of big money, government do-goodery and anything that smacks of crony capitalism.

Business Republicans are essential to the money equation, but 2016 will determine if we have reached a point where their support comes with a political price in a GOP primary. Tea Partiers largely (and largely correctly) blame them for a generation of compassionate conservatives who thought, “We can use the superpowers of Big Government for good, not evil” and then bought us TARP, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, Common Core and other programs they despise. Immigration will be a major ideological flashpoint: Business Republicans want it, and fast. The rest of the GOP base is adamantly opposed to any immigration bill that doesn’t involve moats of lava and laser cannons.

Between today and the nomination, the candidates will navigate Obamacare, Obama’s legacy, immigration, foreign policy (yes, there’s still a big, bad world out there), the so-called War on Women, the NSA, gay marriage, inequality, privacy, energy exploration and a host of other issues—all while trying to not let their version of a “47 percent” remark be captured for YouTube infamy.

They’ll test themselves, and one another. They’ll constantly be judged not only by how they’re doing in the primary, but by how voters perceive they will match up against Hillary Clinton.

So which one can do it all? Who is going to not only have the right answers about world peace, but also win the swimsuit competition?

Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and presidential candidate:

There is no frontrunner for the GOP nomination. There is not even a midrunner yet. There are a lot of potential starters. Senators can build notoriety because the political media is centered on Washington. Governors, however, can raise more money and have actual achievements as opposed to speeches and fights. The early field clearly has to include current and former governors Scott Walker, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee. Of the senators, Rand Paul has an automatic national base, Ted Cruz has an intense following and Marco Rubio is attractive and energetic but with less of a base (and less opposition) than the other two. Oddly, no non-freshman senator seems to be in the running. Paul Ryan is the one House member who could run. A number of people may run to set the stage for future campaigns or to audition for the vice presidential nomination.

* * *

William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard:

Who’s going to think about running? Everyone. Who’s going to survive training camp, endure pre-season and do well enough in scrimmages to be on stage for the first post-Labor Day 2015 GOP presidential debate, moderated by Megyn Kelly? John Bolton, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Mike Pence, Joe Scarborough and Scott Walker. That will be the regular season starting nine.

Maybe.

* * *

Mary Matalin, Republican consultant:

Hillary Clinton’s lead is ephemeral. As soon as she gets in, if she gets in, she will be challenged and it will evaporate. Just the nature of the beast. I predict she doesn’t run.

On the GOP side, the question is less “who” than “what.” What is 21st century conservatism? Instead of internecine sandbox games of labeling and pitting against each other the myriad factions that have always coalesced with tension (as we have been doing since 2006), conservatives should lay down as their nonnegotiable, baseline candidate requirement an outcome-based, empirically demonstrable record or a policy agenda that has succeeded historically and is tailored for 21st-century technology, domestic natural superiority (energy, innovative capacity) and global threats, which includes—indeed, arguably begins with—our own structural debt. Our bedrock must be the Constitution, with an emphasis on enumerated powers. We should eschew all identity politics and call it out for what it is: anathema to the American ideal.

Candidate skills matter—which does not mean media flash capacity; our candidate must have the fortitude born of unshakable confidence in our convictions. Campaigns matter—and that does not mean having cash-machine capacity; we have to catch up with the Democrats’ technological superiority, and we have to be invigorated by belief in our philosophy.

There are more than a few candidates who fit this bill. This is going to be a rocking great primary.

* * *

Mark McKinnon, political consultant and media strategist:

How about a Clash of the Titans in 2016? Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush would be a classic battle for the political ages. Of course, many would like to move beyond dynastic options, but it’s hard to imagine a pair better qualified to actually manage this crazy, complicated country. Americans have likely quenched, at least for now, their thirst for fresh faces. Most have had their fill of change. What voters might be looking for in the next presidential election is experience and competence. Leaders who know how government works and have an extended network of qualified friends and allies they can seed throughout to make sure the trains run on time.

Jeb Bush is the sort of pragmatic, common-sense and compassionate conservative Republicans need to win back the White House. He’d attract Hispanics and likely win the key electoral prize of his home state, Florida. And he has a great record to run on, including some innovative, forward-thinking strategies like early childhood investment. Florida leads the country in the number of four-year olds in literacy programs—over 70 percent, and Jeb did it without increasing taxes.

His mother may be right about the appetite for another Bush in the White House. But that would certainly be balanced by the appetite for another Clinton in the White House. So, if ever there were a time for Jeb to run, it’s now. He says he’s thinking about it and will only take the jump if he can do so “joyfully.” Which could be problematic. Pretty hard to run in a Republican primary joyfully these days.

And if Jeb doesn’t, or even if he does, watch out for Scott Walker. He’s the dark horse. Getting brighter every day.

* * *

Richard Perle, political adviser and former chairman of the Defense Policy Board:

Any suspense lacking in the contest for the Democratic nomination is likely to be compensated by a wide-open, wholly unpredictable scramble for the Republican ticket. Today’s public opinion is worthless. Except for the professional deformity of contributors to roundups like this one, most voters are thinking about next week, not November 2016.

Hillary Clinton is a talented politician, but the country’s problems are many and deep and some—the accumulated burdens of slow economic growth and mountainous debt—may be intractable. Voters may be drawn to new, younger thinkers who have defined the country’s problems and opportunities and have convincing ideas about how to fix and advance them. (Hillary will not be burdened with a foreign policy to defend; neither she nor the Obama administration ever had one. But for that reason, there will be plenty of foreign and security problems facing the 2016 candidates.)

Paul Ryan is a very smart, hard-working, effective leader—young, articulate and ready to be president. I think he will connect with voters demanding change. The same can be said of Scott Walker, who whose extraordinary courage in Wisconsin has been rewarded by a record of policy success and public approbation. Jeb Bush (any Bush), like Mitt Romney, will evoke the past when Americans will be thinking about the future. And with at least two talented, attractive Republicans wanting to do, and not simply be, something, the retreads are finished.